politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bookies holding back payment to Alabama punters because the re

Pleased to have sat this one out, could be weeks before we get an official result. Bookies are right to hold on for the formal announcement - however annoying it might be, it’s better than them having to pay out both sides!

I see failing Facebook are trying to cover their arses today.

Can’t understand why anyone would believe Fake News Facebook.

Sad.

It is remarkable how a country as rich and powerful as the United States with such a long democratic tradition is so incompetent at organising elections.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Very informative thread. I had no idea God was registered to vote in Alabama.

One for Mr Eagles.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/12/egyptian-singer-shyma-sent-prison-two-years-explicit-music-video/
An Egyptian pop singer has been sentenced to two years in prison for "inciting debauchery" after a music video showing her suggestively eating a banana was ruled to be too sexually explicit.

Sandpit said:

One for Mr Eagles.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/12/egyptian-singer-shyma-sent-prison-two-years-explicit-music-video/
An Egyptian pop singer has been sentenced to two years in prison for "inciting debauchery" after a music video showing her suggestively eating a banana was ruled to be too sexually explicit.

There’s nothing worse when you make eye contact with a woman eating a banana.

RoyalBlue said:

It is remarkable how a country as rich and powerful as the United States with such a long democratic tradition is so incompetent at organising elections.

Remember how long it took California to count their votes? I think it took weeks...

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, I imagine Crassus would suggest a Parthian beverage was worse.

A Parthian beverage won’t lead to a multi-million sexual harassment case.

TheScreamingEagles said:

tpfkar said:

Rick Sanatorium?!

Do you not remember the Santorum surge?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/blogs/ticket/spreading-santorum-protest-page-dropped-first-page-google-190115107.html
Google eventually dropped it. Thank Christ.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

tpfkar said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

@BBCNormanS: Hmm....PM rebuffs call by @Anna_Soubry to accept “meaningful vote” amendment. Sounds like Govt going to try and tough this one out #PMQs

Probably a mistake, but they've prepared the way for a loss, or someone has, with months of build up to it.

Of all the amendments in play, I can't get my head around why the Government are going to the wall on this one. So what if there's a meaningful vote before they sign? If there's no parliamentary majority for it it's toast anyway.

Perhaps scared of what happens if parliament votes it down? I think that's the point.

Have any of the proponents of this amendment managed to articulate what exactly it sets out to achieve?

To ensure a sovereign Parliament gets a meaningful vote.

I hope you sing the same tune if the amendment is defeated, as it will be our sovereign parliament saying no need for another vote.

Personally I'd accept the amendment. They won't get credit for it, but it saves a defeat and at worst the intent is mischievous, and at best as noble as you've suggested. Same reason I was glad of the outcome of the A50 case.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Should also be remembered that Roy Moore was twice removed as Chief Justice of Alabama for not following the law/instructions of the Supreme Court of the United States.

He’s the epitome of a sore loser.

Incredible people are still eligible after having been so removed. I assume an issue with voting them in.

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

Very informative thread. I had no idea God was registered to vote in Alabama.

I always thought him a guiding hand, not so direct.

Of course, proponents of divine providence usually point to their success as proof of God's favour, not their defeats. As I recall Charles I refusing to accept gods will that he had lost angered many, if we take people's words at face value.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Off topic.

I really regret subscribing to a sadomasochistic text chat service.

I replied STOP, so they sent even more.

Try LOUISE

AlsoIndigo said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Should also be remembered that Roy Moore was twice removed as Chief Justice of Alabama for not following the law/instructions of the Supreme Court of the United States.

He’s the epitome of a sore loser.

Incredible people are still eligible after having been so removed. I assume an issue with voting them in.

Amateurs

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/783379/jail-no-barrier-to-political-career-in-philippines

I recall India had a huge problem of people facing very serious criminal charges being in office, up to murder, but a alleged mass murderer? That's big. Not unique, remarkably.

What's Duterte up to these days?

AlsoIndigo said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Should also be remembered that Roy Moore was twice removed as Chief Justice of Alabama for not following the law/instructions of the Supreme Court of the United States.

He’s the epitome of a sore loser.

Incredible people are still eligible after having been so removed. I assume an issue with voting them in.

Amateurs

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/783379/jail-no-barrier-to-political-career-in-philippines

Would they be permanently barred in the UK?

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Off topic.

I really regret subscribing to a sadomasochistic text chat service.

I replied STOP, so they sent even more.

Try LOUISE

Chapeau

OldKingCole said:

AlsoIndigo said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Should also be remembered that Roy Moore was twice removed as Chief Justice of Alabama for not following the law/instructions of the Supreme Court of the United States.

He’s the epitome of a sore loser.

Incredible people are still eligible after having been so removed. I assume an issue with voting them in.

Amateurs

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/783379/jail-no-barrier-to-political-career-in-philippines

Would they be permanently barred in the UK?

I believe you are only barred if you are currently in prison.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Phil, I read that a recount could still happen, but Moore would have to pay for it.

I wonder how many contributors to the 2016 recount effort were pure observers of democracy, and so wish to contribute to Moore's recount fund?

https://www.jill2016.com/recount

RobD said:

OldKingCole said:

AlsoIndigo said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Should also be remembered that Roy Moore was twice removed as Chief Justice of Alabama for not following the law/instructions of the Supreme Court of the United States.

He’s the epitome of a sore loser.

Incredible people are still eligible after having been so removed. I assume an issue with voting them in.

Amateurs

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/783379/jail-no-barrier-to-political-career-in-philippines

Would they be permanently barred in the UK?

I believe you are only barred if you are currently in prison.

I can’t think of a recent example of someone who has been to prison standing, but there must be one.

oxfordsimon said:

OldKingCole said:

RobD said:

OldKingCole said:

AlsoIndigo said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Should also be remembered that Roy Moore was twice removed as Chief Justice of Alabama for not following the law/instructions of the Supreme Court of the United States.

He’s the epitome of a sore loser.

Incredible people are still eligible after having been so removed. I assume an issue with voting them in.

Amateurs

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/783379/jail-no-barrier-to-political-career-in-philippines

Would they be permanently barred in the UK?

I believe you are only barred if you are currently in prison.

I can’t think of a recent example of someone who has been to prison standing, but there must be one.

I am sure that some of the IRA Hunger Strikers stood for election from their cells - but it was a long time ago and I may be misremembering

Just did the research - and indeed Bobby Sands did get elected from Prison (he died shortly thereafter)

It was his case that caused the 1981 Representation of the People Act to be passed banning those from serving jail terms from being candidates

oxfordsimon said:

oxfordsimon said:

OldKingCole said:

RobD said:

OldKingCole said:

AlsoIndigo said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Should also be remembered that Roy Moore was twice removed as Chief Justice of Alabama for not following the law/instructions of the Supreme Court of the United States.

He’s the epitome of a sore loser.

Incredible people are still eligible after having been so removed. I assume an issue with voting them in.

Amateurs

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/783379/jail-no-barrier-to-political-career-in-philippines

Would they be permanently barred in the UK?

I believe you are only barred if you are currently in prison.

I can’t think of a recent example of someone who has been to prison standing, but there must be one.

I am sure that some of the IRA Hunger Strikers stood for election from their cells - but it was a long time ago and I may be misremembering

Just did the research - and indeed Bobby Sands did get elected from Prison (he died shortly thereafter)

It was his case that caused the 1981 Representation of the People Act to be passed banning those from serving jail terms from being candidates

You are quite right; recall the case now. Seem to recall though that other Republicans have served jail terms and stood for, and been elected to Parliament later.

Pulpstar said:

OldKingCole said:

RobD said:

OldKingCole said:

AlsoIndigo said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Should also be remembered that Roy Moore was twice removed as Chief Justice of Alabama for not following the law/instructions of the Supreme Court of the United States.

He’s the epitome of a sore loser.

Incredible people are still eligible after having been so removed. I assume an issue with voting them in.

Amateurs

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/783379/jail-no-barrier-to-political-career-in-philippines

Would they be permanently barred in the UK?

I believe you are only barred if you are currently in prison.

I can’t think of a recent example of someone who has been to prison standing, but there must be one.

By-election April 1981: Fermanagh and South Tyrone Party
Anti H-Block Bobby Sands 30,493 51.2
UUP Harry West 29,046 48.8 +20.8
Majority 1,447 2.4
Turnout 59,538 86.9 −0.2
Anti H-Block gain from Independent Republican

Hence the 1981 Representation of the People Act.

Sandpit said:

Pleased to have sat this one out, could be weeks before we get an official result. Bookies are right to hold on for the formal announcement - however annoying it might be, it’s better than them having to pay out both sides!

WE already knew we would be waiting till January for the 'official' result.

I'm still don't understand the point behind the amendment.

If it passes there are two options.

One is that we crash out without a deal, as whatever the deal, the die-hard remain MPs will never agree with it.

Surely no one wants that?

Unless we go back to the EU and say "We can't get it through Parliament, so can we modify it as Parliament wants, which according to underpants man, will be no FOM, overseeing by the EU courts and full payments to you for membership of the common market and customs union." In other words ...Remain.

Ah, I see it now. The Labour party can blame the rebel Tories for reneging on the referendum result, or else muddy the waters a lot. Not very cunning but very transparent.

There will be no second option.

https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/status/940953688071462915

Tissue_Price said:

https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/status/940953688071462915

Is it gerrymandered or is it just that DNC voters are concentrated? Those don't look like exceptionally bizarre boundaries.

Indeed only 1 and 6 could potentially have had more blue voters from 7. 5 and 3 would stay red either way.

CD13 said:

I'm still don't understand the point behind the amendment.

If it passes there are two options.

One is that we crash out without a deal, as whatever the deal, the die-hard remain MPs will never agree with it.

Surely no one wants that?

Unless we go back to the EU and say "We can't get it through Parliament, so can we modify it as Parliament wants, which according to underpants man, will be no FOM, overseeing by the EU courts and full payments to you for membership of the common market and customs union." In other words ...Remain.

Ah, I see it now. The Labour party can blame the rebel Tories for reneging on the referendum result, or else muddy the waters a lot. Not very cunning but very transparent.

There will be no second option.

If it passes there are two options:

A minority government will not be able to determine the form of Brexit without winning the agreement of MPs. It seems pretty clear that MPs won’t vote to overturn the referendum result but beyond that all possible forms (that were argued for by various Leavers) including EEA membership, customs union membership, CETA or WTO are legitimate endpoints.

A majority government that can whip its MPs successfully will be able to determine those terms.

RobD said:

Pulpstar said:

OldKingCole said:

RobD said:

OldKingCole said:

AlsoIndigo said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Should also be remembered that Roy Moore was twice removed as Chief Justice of Alabama for not following the law/instructions of the Supreme Court of the United States.

He’s the epitome of a sore loser.

Incredible people are still eligible after having been so removed. I assume an issue with voting them in.

Amateurs

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/783379/jail-no-barrier-to-political-career-in-philippines

Would they be permanently barred in the UK?

I believe you are only barred if you are currently in prison.

I can’t think of a recent example of someone who has been to prison standing, but there must be one.

By-election April 1981: Fermanagh and South Tyrone Party
Anti H-Block Bobby Sands 30,493 51.2
UUP Harry West 29,046 48.8 +20.8
Majority 1,447 2.4
Turnout 59,538 86.9 −0.2
Anti H-Block gain from Independent Republican

Hence the 1981 Representation of the People Act.

I didn't know that one had been that close.

A victory obtained by traditional voting practices?

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: according to Twitter, Sirotkin's now favourite for the Williams seat. The Russian driver was an oft-mentioned name for Toro Rosso, but it was felt he was too young/inexperienced, I think.

Not sure if any other seats are unresolved once Williams announce their line up.

He comes with about £10m in funding I hear. I guess that swayed the decision

CD13 said:

Mr Polruan,

The Remainers have a majority in Parliament. They will use it to water down the UK Leave demands as much as possible and the EU will obviously be happy with the result.

A legitimate question. What then was the point of the referendum if the voters can be ignored?

52% of the voters might have to accept a deal that has been decided by parliament. But as those 52% didn't know what they were voting for, I can't see how you can say that they are being ignored.

Philip_Thompson said:

Tissue_Price said:

https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/status/940953688071462915

Is it gerrymandered or is it just that DNC voters are concentrated? Those don't look like exceptionally bizarre boundaries.

Indeed only 1 and 6 could potentially have had more blue voters from 7. 5 and 3 would stay red either way.

It isn't that gerrymandered - and in more normal circumstances it guarantees the Democrats a House seat when more normal-looking boundaries could give a sweep. The Voting Rights Act 1965 mandates a majority-minority district (#7) so that partially explains the weird shape, reaching into the suburbs of both Birmingham & Montgomery. A more UK-style approach would be to start with seats based on the four large cities (all 180-220k or so).

Mr. E, decision isn't made yet, but that would help.

Mr. Topping, I referred specifically to migration. Or do you think Merkel throwing open the borders of her country to let in anyone who turned up was a wise decision?

TonyE said:

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: according to Twitter, Sirotkin's now favourite for the Williams seat. The Russian driver was an oft-mentioned name for Toro Rosso, but it was felt he was too young/inexperienced, I think.

Not sure if any other seats are unresolved once Williams announce their line up.

He comes with about £10m in funding I hear. I guess that swayed the decision

While Die Hard is definitely a Christmas movie....F1 is definitely not a real sport...throws hand grenade and legs it.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. E, decision isn't made yet, but that would help.

Mr. Topping, I referred specifically to migration. Or do you think Merkel throwing open the borders of her country to let in anyone who turned up was a wise decision?

It was a decision taken for perfectly rational reasons. So yes I do think it wise.

Philip_Thompson said:

Tissue_Price said:

https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/status/940953688071462915

Is it gerrymandered or is it just that DNC voters are concentrated? Those don't look like exceptionally bizarre boundaries.

Indeed only 1 and 6 could potentially have had more blue voters from 7. 5 and 3 would stay red either way.

District 7 is a majority-minority district as set out by the Voting Rights act 1965. It was deliberately created to ensure at least one majority-minority seat in Alabama by taking the mainly African American bits of Birmingham and Montgomery. It permanently ensures one Democrat seat but at a cost of making the other 6 seats Republican

Carolus_Rex said:

Ishmael_Z said:

JosiasJessop said:

TonyE said:

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: according to Twitter, Sirotkin's now favourite for the Williams seat. The Russian driver was an oft-mentioned name for Toro Rosso, but it was felt he was too young/inexperienced, I think.

Not sure if any other seats are unresolved once Williams announce their line up.

He comes with about £10m in funding I hear. I guess that swayed the decision

I think someone (Mr Sandpit?) mentioned there might be a problem with young drivers such as Sirotkin: Williams' main sponsor is Martini, and they require older drivers who can publicise their drinks in all relevant countries. Stroll is 18, and Sirotkin is 22.

I daresay Williams can straighten that out, though.

Very, very fast driving and 15% ABV alcoholic drinks just go together like a horse and carriage, don't they? One doesn't have to be a prissy nanny-statist to find it a bit odd.

Not to mention all that bubbly that gets sprayed around after the race (Do they still do that? I haven't watched F1 in years)

They certainly do...A corbynista has the contract for it....

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Brooke, not really EU policy so much as Merkel being a moron.

Having been in power for 12 years and having come through elections successfully, I think you must operate on the assumption that a) she is not a moron; and b) she has and had a democratic mandate to do what she did; and c) no one else would have been able to do it any better.

That or the German electoral system is a grave warning to us all about how complicated voting systems make it incredibly difficult to bring about a change in government.

Merkel has failed, utterly, and the AFD winning 94 seats is symptomatic of that. Yet still Merkel won't budge, and the AFD are, of course, too right wing to do business with.

So you get a situation where the Germans will carry on sticking their fingers in their ears and going la la la, I'm not listening to you, which will mean the far right will continue to grow.

Contrast and compare that to GE2015 and GE2017, where UKIP won 12.6%, forced a referendum, then condemned themselves to irrelevance (1.8%) at GE2017 - effectively neutering the British "far" right.

For all its flaws, the British electoral system isn't half bad.

European history has given its cultures good reason to fear the rule of the mob, but in Britain revolution has largely taken place peacefully at the ballot box, with once mightly leaders humbled and brought to heel.

It is this difference between the UK and the rest of the EU states that makes our democratic cultures so fundamentally incompatible.

Polruan said:

CD13 said:

I'm still don't understand the point behind the amendment.

If it passes there are two options.

One is that we crash out without a deal, as whatever the deal, the die-hard remain MPs will never agree with it.

Surely no one wants that?

Unless we go back to the EU and say "We can't get it through Parliament, so can we modify it as Parliament wants, which according to underpants man, will be no FOM, overseeing by the EU courts and full payments to you for membership of the common market and customs union." In other words ...Remain.

Ah, I see it now. The Labour party can blame the rebel Tories for reneging on the referendum result, or else muddy the waters a lot. Not very cunning but very transparent.

There will be no second option.

If it passes there are two options:

A minority government will not be able to determine the form of Brexit without winning the agreement of MPs. It seems pretty clear that MPs won’t vote to overturn the referendum result but beyond that all possible forms (that were argued for by various Leavers) including EEA membership, customs union membership, CETA or WTO are legitimate endpoints.

A majority government that can whip its MPs successfully will be able to determine those terms.

The problem being that it is not in the hands of the MPs to make those decisions, for all we wish it were. If the Government has negotiated a settlement and the MPs vote it down then the only realistic option on the table is a WTO relationship and no Brexit deal. Because I don't think there is a cat in hells chance that the EU are going to turn around and agree to renegotiate for something else with only a couple of months left before the deadline.

I want MPs to vote on the final deal. But the idea that, realistically, the choice will be anything but 'The Deal' or 'No Deal' is pretty fanciful.

Philip_Thompson said:

Tissue_Price said:

https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/status/940953688071462915

Is it gerrymandered or is it just that DNC voters are concentrated? Those don't look like exceptionally bizarre boundaries.

Indeed only 1 and 6 could potentially have had more blue voters from 7. 5 and 3 would stay red either way.

7 is exceptionally gerrymandered. Those twiddly bits at the edges are taking chunks out of other districts which would make them competitive to make a super safe D seat

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, enclaves, rising crime/terrorism, little integration, rowing back of crucial values (it's already happening with free speech).

Mr. Tyndall, any chance that MPs will try and make the choice between the deal or status quo (ie remaining)?

I am sure some will try. I have no idea how successful they would be.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, enclaves, rising crime/terrorism, little integration, rowing back of crucial values (it's already happening with free speech).

Mr. Tyndall, any chance that MPs will try and make the choice between the deal or status quo (ie remaining)?

How does the number of terrorist incidents in Germany vs here stack up?

Richard_Tyndall said:

Polruan said:

CD13 said:

I'm still don't understand the point behind the amendment.

If it passes there are two options.

One is that we crash out without a deal, as whatever the deal, the die-hard remain MPs will never agree with it.

Surely no one wants that?

Unless we go back to the EU and say "We can't get it through Parliament, so can we modify it as Parliament wants, which according to underpants man, will be no FOM, overseeing by the EU courts and full payments to you for membership of the common market and customs union." In other words ...Remain.

Ah, I see it now. The Labour party can blame the rebel Tories for reneging on the referendum result, or else muddy the waters a lot. Not very cunning but very transparent.

There will be no second option.

If it passes there are two options:

A minority government will not be able to determine the form of Brexit without winning the agreement of MPs. It seems pretty clear that MPs won’t vote to overturn the referendum result but beyond that all possible forms (that were argued for by various Leavers) including EEA membership, customs union membership, CETA or WTO are legitimate endpoints.

A majority government that can whip its MPs successfully will be able to determine those terms.

The problem being that it is not in the hands of the MPs to make those decisions, for all we wish it were. If the Government has negotiated a settlement and the MPs vote it down then the only realistic option on the table is a WTO relationship and no Brexit deal. Because I don't think there is a cat in hells chance that the EU are going to turn around and agree to renegotiate for something else with only a couple of months left before the deadline.

I want MPs to vote on the final deal. But the idea that, realistically, the choice will be anything but 'The Deal' or 'No Deal' is pretty fanciful.

The choice will also include “extend and fudge” and “don’t leave”. The reason that the government aren’t prepared to give ground here is that when the deal can’t live up to the mutually incompatible promises they’ve made, it has to be forced through and ancient history before the next GE. If they’re still negotiating and not making progress at that point they’re toast. So “extend and fudge” must be opposed even if it’s in the national interest.

kyf_100 said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Brooke, not really EU policy so much as Merkel being a moron.

Having been in power for 12 years and having come through elections successfully, I think you must operate on the assumption that a) she is not a moron; and b) she has and had a democratic mandate to do what she did; and c) no one else would have been able to do it any better.

That or the German electoral system is a grave warning to us all about how complicated voting systems make it incredibly difficult to bring about a change in government.

Merkel has failed, utterly, and the AFD winning 94 seats is symptomatic of that. Yet still Merkel won't budge, and the AFD are, of course, too right wing to do business with.

So you get a situation where the Germans will carry on sticking their fingers in their ears and going la la la, I'm not listening to you, which will mean the far right will continue to grow.

Contrast and compare that to GE2015 and GE2017, where UKIP won 12.6%, forced a referendum, then condemned themselves to irrelevance (1.8%) at GE2017 - effectively neutering the British "far" right.

For all its flaws, the British electoral system isn't half bad.

European history has given its cultures good reason to fear the rule of the mob, but in Britain revolution has largely taken place peacefully at the ballot box, with once mightly leaders humbled and brought to heel.

It is this difference between the UK and the rest of the EU states that makes our democratic cultures so fundamentally incompatible.

Does all that make Merkel a moron?

I just cashed out on Betfair. A bird in the hand... not that there are many political bets with a result in the near future in which to invest my modest winnings. Is there a market on whether Mrs May will win the vote this evening?

https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/941005244703657984

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/941005244703657984

He's an idiot with little self awareness.

Ishmael_Z said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, enclaves, rising crime/terrorism, little integration, rowing back of crucial values (it's already happening with free speech).

Mr. Tyndall, any chance that MPs will try and make the choice between the deal or status quo (ie remaining)?

How does the number of terrorist incidents in Germany vs here stack up?

How many crowds were chanting "Death to the Jews" in London last w/e?

That you or I know about? No idea.

You think the UK is without its extreme Jihadist element?

partypoliticalorphan said:

I just cashed out on Betfair. A bird in the hand... not that there are many political bets with a result in the near future in which to invest my modest winnings. Is there a market on whether Mrs May will win the vote this evening?

If you are prepared to wait, Sadiq Khan as next London mayor at 1.33 looks attractive to me, a return of about 13% p.a. over two and a half years. Hard to see Labour losing in London before the GE and hard to see Sadiq not wanting a second term, since he has stood down from parliament.

kyf_100 said:

TOPPING said:

kyf_100 said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Brooke, not really EU policy so much as Merkel being a moron.

Having been in power for 12 years and having come through elections successfully, I think you must operate on the assumption that a) she is not a moron; and b) she has and had a democratic mandate to do what she did; and c) no one else would have been able to do it any better.

That or the German electoral system is a grave warning to us all about how complicated voting systems make it incredibly difficult to bring about a change in government.

Merkel has failed, utterly, and the AFD winning 94 seats is symptomatic of that. Yet still Merkel won't budge, and the AFD are, of course, too right wing to do business with.

So you get a situation where the Germans will carry on sticking their fingers in their ears and going la la la, I'm not listening to you, which will mean the far right will continue to grow.

Contrast and compare that to GE2015 and GE2017, where UKIP won 12.6%, forced a referendum, then condemned themselves to irrelevance (1.8%) at GE2017 - effectively neutering the British "far" right.

For all its flaws, the British electoral system isn't half bad.

European history has given its cultures good reason to fear the rule of the mob, but in Britain revolution has largely taken place peacefully at the ballot box, with once mightly leaders humbled and brought to heel.

It is this difference between the UK and the rest of the EU states that makes our democratic cultures so fundamentally incompatible.

Does all that make Merkel a moron?

It makes her an autocrat who was able to impose mass immigration not just on her own country, but the rest of the Schengen zone. Now the EU is demanding countries that won't take in "their fair share" of immigrants pay €250,000 per immigrant.

It is the clearest example of the democratic deficit at the heart of the EU I can think of - that one country's leader can unilaterally impose a policy that has such a profound, dramatic and destabilising effect on every other country, without the citizens of that country having recourse to reject that leader at the ballot box.

And that is what makes her a moron.

What was the practical alternative to Merkel's decision back in August 2015? Any other approach certainly wouldn't have relieved other EU countries of the burden of dealing with refugees - quite the contrary.